 |
 | Search this Thread |
| 07-20-2009, 12:25 PM | #16 |
 Originally posted by MRRiley  Gene, 4 photographers and videographers sounds like a mess that the B&G and/or their families caused. However if all were hired, then that's what the B&G asked for. it's their show, so suck it up. However, you really are right. There should not be that many needed for a typical wedding. When I shoot with an assistant we are rarely, if ever, in the same room other than at the reception. One of us will take the bride and the other the groom. I will shoot inside the service, the assistant will shoot outside as the couple exits the hall. The assistant either helps me set up the formals or is off shooting the guests arriving and preparing for the reception. All photographers and videographers should be as unobtrusive as possible and frankly the only time they should be seen is for the obvious stock photo ops. Even then they should get in and out and should only direct the action if asked (which often happens). The formals on the other hand, ARE the photographer's show. During those, you have to be in unquestioned control. Otherwise, as I said before it will take forever and everyone will be pissed off, tired and late. Also, the wedding is for the B&G, not the photographer, BUT the couple has invested a lot of trust and expectations in their photographer. It's his job to capture the day and if that means bumping Aunt Martha or asking Uncle Joe to get out of the isle then so be it. btw, "fauxtographer" does not encompass anyone at the ceremony with a camera other than the pro. That is just my word for the wannabe's that try to take over the shots. I'm sure that doesn't describe you does it Gene? Mike The still photographer was actually outta there as soon as the garter was thrown. Whether faux or no  , I ended up the only decent still photographer for the rest of the reception. Perhaps that is all right. I agree about getting Uncle Joe out of the aisle (I usually don't even bring a camera into the church), but I've seen way too much bumping and crowding of aunts, uncles and parents on the dance floor. And it would be nice if we saw the bride kissed or the unity candle lighted. The guy at the first wedding (by himself) got it exactly right. Perhaps that is why he could show up in a beautiful black vintage Corvette convertible. | |
| 07-20-2009, 01:36 PM | #18 |
| Originally posted by woof Most contracts for wedding work specify that quests are specifically disallowed from shooting when the photographer is working. Here's a sample: EXCLUSIVITY / GUEST PHOTOGRAPHY: It is understood that PHOTOGRAPHER will act as the sole and exclusive wedding photographer. PHOTOGRAPHER reserves the right to bring one assistant at his discretion. Since flashes from guests’ cameras may ruin shots taken by PHOTOGRAPHER, THE CLIENT acknowledges that they are responsible for notifying all of their guests that guest photography is not permitted at any time while the professional photographer is in session. The formal photography time is for the exclusive use of PHOTOGRAPHER to capture the formal wedding portraits. Due to time constraints and the need for subjects to pay full attention to the professional photographer, guest photography is requested to be done at a separate time. If you were the main photographer, paid or not, this should have been the house rule. woof! From what the OP wrote, the person who was getting in his/her way may have even been asked to the exactly the same thing by another member of the immediate family. If the bride/groom/family want to have one person responsible for photos and one person take photos, they need to figure that out and clearly communicate that fact. If the bride and groom are not paying for a pro, I don't think it is too unreasonable to have more than one person taking photos. Many years ago, when I was very young, I asked a relative who was quite talented with his SLR to photograph my little wedding on my parents' back porch, and asked everyone else to back off. I won't go into the details, but I ended up with exactly two photos of my wedding--both taken by an aunt with an Instamatic. | |
| 07-20-2009, 01:44 PM | #19 |
| Originally posted by aweir I was about to tell her to sit down and stop taking pictures because she was getting in my way of the shots that *I* was asked to take, not her.  | |
| 07-20-2009, 05:32 PM | #20 |
| Originally posted by aweir bad enough that she was getting in my way but on top of it she was using a flash and moving around the place like she was in charge!!! And using a flash is pretty much needed indoors unless you're running lens faster than f/2, and even sometimes outdoors. People who are experienced w/ an SLR know this, and it's fairly common to have SLRs at weddings too (at a 20 something wedding I attended a few years ago, there were probably half a dozen SLRs w/ flashes). Unless the person got in your way, and most courteous SLR owners would come up, talk to you and tell you to let them know when they are (I did that at my brother's wedding when he asked me to shoot as a second which I thought was a dumb idea). Or you can strike up a conversation with them and ask them not to get in your shots. It doesn't have to be a me vs. them mentality  The cake cutting ceremony or first kiss or first dance is generally a mess...that's where you have to ask people not to get in your way and then let them have their turn. You'll have gazillions of P&S cams even w/o the SLRs... | |
| 07-20-2009, 05:53 PM | #21 |
| Originally posted by kenyee "she moved like she was in charge"? "In charge" usually means she was posing people that you were taking photos of. If she took photos of other people, that's pretty standard nowadays, so I'm confused about what you mean. And using a flash is pretty much needed indoors unless you're running lens faster than f/2, and even sometimes outdoors. People who are experienced w/ an SLR know this, and it's fairly common to have SLRs at weddings too (at a 20 something wedding I attended a few years ago, there were probably half a dozen SLRs w/ flashes). Unless the person got in your way, and most courteous SLR owners would come up, talk to you and tell you to let them know when they are (I did that at my brother's wedding when he asked me to shoot as a second which I thought was a dumb idea). Or you can strike up a conversation with them and ask them not to get in your shots. It doesn't have to be a me vs. them mentality The cake cutting ceremony or first kiss or first dance is generally a mess...that's where you have to ask people not to get in your way and then let them have their turn. You'll have gazillions of P&S cams even w/o the SLRs... | |
| 07-20-2009, 06:36 PM | #22 |
| Originally posted by GeneV In most of the weddings, the bride and groom seem to look like deer in the headlights... Mike | |
| 07-20-2009, 08:28 PM | #23 |
|
I have a clause in my contract that covers this issue, including a statement to the effect that although other protography is certainly allowed, the B&G need to understand that if guests interfere with my work, I am not a miracle worker and cannot guarantee the quality of my work in those occasions. Case in point, an outdoor wedding I shot last month. This one relative was so rude he actually got up, pulled out his cute metallic blue pocket shooter, stood right behind the bride, groom, and the officiant, and began to snap photos. Although he was a bit of a pain, I actually felt bad for the bride and groom. This guy was trespassing into that space reserved for the bridal party and officiant. Heck, not even I would go where he did...quite literally hovering over the bridesmaids' shoulders to take a picture, then reviewing the photos as he strolled behind the officiant. Had the officiant been stricter, the guy would have been yelled at, that's for sure. I made sure to "document" his interference with a few shots, just for the record, and kept doing my job. When he did the same during the family shots (walked out of the group shot to take a snap of the group he was supposed to be in), I actually turned the camera on him - making everyone laugh and yell at him to get back in the group. I am one of those who will not have a problem letting others take a key shot (cake cutting, first dance, etc), as long as I'm allowed to take my shot - and I will say this too. Most people will cooperate if you tell them the bride and groom will pose for them too. As Kenyee stated - it's not us Vs them. I'm just the guy with the bigger flash  | |
| 07-21-2009, 01:48 AM | #24 |
| Originally posted by MRRiley (snip) However, I DO NOT agree that there is nothing you can do in this situation or that you should just suck it up. The first time you have to wait for a shot or miss a shot due to the FAUXTOGRAPHER, let the bride and groom (or Best Man or designated "Sgt at Arms") know that if THEY do not control the disruptive guest... (snip) ...the B&G are free to have disruptive guests removed. (snip) Also, make it clear beforehand that NO ONE else is allowed to shoot during the posed couple and group photos. (snip) I'm actually rather surprised to hear this from you, Mike. You've argued many, many, times in this forum in favor of a person's right to photograph nearly anywhere and everywhere, yet now advocate taking that very right away from family members or family guests (what you call "disruptive guests") at a wedding. What is different in this scenario from those many others - the fact the photographer is bothering you? stewart | |
| 07-21-2009, 05:24 AM | #25 |
| Last edited by GeneV; 07-21-2009 at 05:45 AM. | |
| 07-21-2009, 06:03 AM | #26 |
| Originally posted by stewart_photo I'm actually rather surprised to hear this from you, Mike. You've argued many, many, times in this forum in favor of a person's right to photograph nearly anywhere and everywhere, yet now advocate taking that very right away from family members or family guests (what you call "disruptive guests") at a wedding. What is different in this scenario from those many others - the fact the photographer is bothering you? stewart The difference here is that the fauxtographer is interfering my ability to do the job which the B&G paid me to do. If I miss a shot because some bozo stands up and takes a flash photo in the middle of "I DO!" then the quality of the product I can deliver suffers. In fact, if this happens enough times during the wedding it can completely destroy the visual story I was paid to deliver. I do still advocate and believe that photographers should be free to shoot darn near everything that can be seen from a public place or in a public setting. Nothing I've said regarding this wedding photography situation contradicts that. Nor is it even at issue here. A wedding is not generally considered a public event nor is the church or hall where it occurs considered to be a "public place" during the wedding. That's why there is a guest list. In this way it is similar to many concerts or sporting events. Only people with tickets get in. The people who own or operate the venue can reasonably restrict photography by the audience and allow only credentialed media to shoot unfettered. At a wedding, the B&G are the "owners" and the pro photographer is the "credentialed media" and it is his job to "get the shot.". Even if the wedding takes place on public property and that property has been secured specifically for the ceremony, it is generally considered a private venue for the duration of the event. Lets say the wedding is being performed on a ball field in Central Park in NY under a permit which grants exclusive use of the field for the ceremony. It is reasonable and completely proper if the B&G decides that only the official photographer shoots photos within the bounds of the field. However, there is nothing to stop anyone standing outside of the area from taking their own photos. If they can see into the field without entering it, it's fair game. Naturally, any given B&G can decide up front that any guy and his sister can shoot photos at their wedding, but if they do so without reasonable restrictions which insure my access and ability to deliver the product I promised, then I will pass on the wedding and tell them to find another photographer. This is NOT a "right to take photos in a public place" issue... I've said throughout this thread that I don't object to other people taking photos during the wedding. I just require that they refrain during the critical moments of the event which the couple has paid me to capture. I'm thrilled if someone else gets a good shot or two (or many), since I obviously can't be everywhere at once (even with an assistant). But stage center and everything that happens there is my job and people who interfere with that are really only hurting the B&G and endangering their album... a point which GeneV mentions just above... Mike Last edited by MRRiley; 07-21-2009 at 06:10 AM. | |
| 07-21-2009, 06:30 AM | #27 |
|
I really have to give a big hand to pros who can work up enthusiasm for a thousand weddings. If I ever went through it again as a groom or father, I'd rather go to a location or to the studio in my wedding attire and let a very good photographer do his/her stuff free of all these issues. Bring some cake, and strike up a dance for the camera. I see some wonderful shots on the site of the photographer from the last wedding, but none of that came from the little studio formed around the cake in the corner of the reception hall. For the reception, I'd just pick from the guest photos and skip paying for the formula crap. However, I won't be in the position again.  Note: Because of a screw-up, we ended up doing something like this after the fact in our wedding many years ago. The photos are great and mean every bit as much to us. | |
| 07-22-2009, 02:13 AM | #28 |
| Originally posted by MRRiley The difference here is that the fauxtographer is interfering my ability to do the job which the B&G paid me to do. If I miss a shot because some bozo stands up.. (snip) I do still advocate and believe that photographers should be free to shoot darn near everything that can be seen from a public place or in a public setting. Nothing I've said regarding this wedding photography situation contradicts that. Nor is it even at issue here. (snip) That's a mighty fine distinction, especially when both have a right to be there (public access & invited guest), neither appear to be breaking the law, and interference with others has seldom been an serious consideration in prior discussions (about crowded train stations, etc). Those similarities is why it's so strange to now hear you advocating taking away or restricting an individual's right to use his or her camera - so strange to hear you advocating restrictions when you've argued so strongly against restrictions nearly everywhere else. My earlier suggestion was to "just ignore them," just as one would do at any other event (public or private). While that seems more compatible with the overall philosophy you've advocated in prior discussions, you now apparently disagree. Not trying to start an argument, just pointing out what seems strange to me - such as calling this individual at the wedding a "fauxtographer" or "bozo," while those you support, with no evidence of greater skill or experience, are always respectfully referred to as "photographers." stewart | |
| 07-22-2009, 07:38 AM | #29 |
| Apples and Oranges Originally posted by stewart_photo That's a mighty fine distinction, especially when both have a right to be there (public access & invited guest), neither appear to be breaking the law, and interference with others has seldom been an serious consideration in prior discussions (about crowded train stations, etc). Those similarities is why it's so strange to now hear you advocating taking away or restricting an individual's right to use his or her camera - so strange to hear you advocating restrictions when you've argued so strongly against restrictions nearly everywhere else. My earlier suggestion was to "just ignore them," just as one would do at any other event (public or private). While that seems more compatible with the overall philosophy you've advocated in prior discussions, you now apparently disagree. Not trying to start an argument, just pointing out what seems strange to me - such as calling this individual at the wedding a "fauxtographer" or "bozo," while those you support, with no evidence of greater skill or experience, are always respectfully referred to as "photographers." stewart What would you do if someone walked into your studio set and started taking photos of a model you were shooting? I don't suppose you'd just let em shoot merrily away, disrupting your work. No, you'd kick em out or have em arrested for trespassing if they refused to leave. For purposes of the contract I have with the B&G, the location of the ceremony and reception IS my SET. For purposes of the wedding it is a private space and is under the control and whims of the B&G and the officiant. The B&G have a contract with the venue and my contract grants me access to the venue. They've paid me to record certain parts of the day (at a minimum) and other people with cameras can and often do endanger their end product. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again... I have no objection to people taking photos during the wedding as long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to get the important shots. Though, frankly I think that many times the guests taking photos are actually doing a disservice to the B&G and the wedding party. This is often seen where the officiant has declared that no flashes are allowed and guests use flash anyway. I will be shooting available light in accordance with his conditions and flash-flash-flash there go the P&S cameras. Tends to ruin the photo of "the kiss" when you have metered for available light and 15 flashes go off. On at least 3 occasions, I've seen ministers stop the ceremony after a flash went off and refuse to proceed until the offender either put their camera away or left. Again, I've NEVER advocated a right to take photos on any private/non-public property or space. The debates we've had before have centered around the "right to take photographs" being restricted in spaces or places available to, open to or visible to the general public. I can see how my position on this wedding issue does seem to relate to Mr. Kerzic's situation at Penn Station. It was my claim that since he was a ticketed passenger he had been granted the right to be on the platform and that he had an incidental right to take photos. This IS similar to your assertion that a wedding guest, being invited, should be granted the same rights. The difference is that Mr. Kerzic was not interfering with any "official" photography taking place at that time. If they had been shooting an AMTRAK video or something or a professional photographer was shooting advertising photos of the platform then it would have been entirely understandable if he had been asked to stop shooting and move along. It would even have been proper to arrest him IF he refused to do so. However, he was acting just like a gazillion other tourists using the platform, taking photos of the neat stuff. His main problem was that he attracted the attention of some terrorist-spooked AMTRAK officers. So, its apples and oranges. I am quite comfortable and maintain that the right to shoot IN PUBLIC should not be restricted in any way. Restrictions on photography on or within private property are totally fine with me. I've never said otherwise. Your property, your right to say what I can or cannot do on it. Likewise, restrictions on photography on or within duly identified private/restricted areas of public property are completely fair as well, as long as there are compelling justifications for denying the puplic access to their property. Notice that I stress the "on or within" part. This is because I do advocate (and this has been my stance from day one) that you should be able to shoot private or restricted public property from public spaces. Basically the old adage "if you can see it you can shoot it". Finally, I am not trying to protect my income by banning other photographers. I am quite confident that I can deliver the shot but it gets much harder if I have other "photographers" popping out like jack-in-the-boxes at every "precious moment." Thats what I am there for. I am simply attempting to safeguard the product the couple has paid me for. Remember, MOST wedding photographers get paid up front so I already have the money in the bank when I show up to shoot the wedding. However I feel an ethical responsibility to provide the best images possible and if that means having someone tell Aunt Jane to put away her camera, thats what I'll do. I also don't care about secondary sales to wedding guests. They never buy photos anyway. Mike p.s. I don't care if the guy getting into my shot is Ansel Adams... If he wasn't paid to get the shot, keep him out of my way. If Bozo was so good maybe the couple should have hired him... Last edited by MRRiley; 07-22-2009 at 07:51 AM. Reason: typos | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| ceremony, flash, photo industry, photographer, photography, pictures, wedding |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Finding a good wedding photographer... | nater | General Talk | 3 | 04-22-2010 11:58 AM |
| Cheap wedding photographer | Pablom | General Talk | 3 | 04-11-2010 10:38 AM |
| How to judge your wedding photographer? | dragonfly | Photographic Industry and Professionals | 25 | 03-08-2010 08:53 AM |
| wedding photographer | hll | Photographic Technique | 6 | 04-08-2008 03:17 PM |
